4 ms·
The whole "it is due to an accepting Hindu attitude" used to be a popular way of framing the situation that is no longer in use because experts have decided tha
by Manishearth 10y ago
The whole "it is due to an accepting Hindu attitude" used to be a popular way of framing the situation that is no longer in use because experts have decided that it was indeed the protectionist policies causing this. It's also a bit offensive.
It is an interesting point about what protectionism prevented. I agree. It did prevent something worse. But it didn't need to extend for as long as it did, and it still did cause harm -- as a "lesser of both evils" situation it still is not a good situation to be in (and the discussion is about whether it is a good policy to apply in absence of a "worse evil" like in the US)
- dominotw 10y ago>experts have decided that it was indeed the protectionist policies causing this. I am curious about this. Do you have a reference. >It's also a bit offensive. Sorry I didn't mean it to be offensive. I think I got that from Nehru's biography that I read couple of years ago.
- Manishearth 10y agohttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_rate_of_growth https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_rate_of_growth > The word "Hindu" in the term was used by some early economists to imply that the Hindu outlook of fatalism and contentedness was responsible for the slow growth. The later economists attribute the rate to the Government of India's protectionist and interventionist policies (see Licence Raj), rather than to a specific religion or to the attitude of the adherents of a particular religion. Yeah, I get that you don't mean to be offensive there.